2025:KER:25152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2013 IN Crl.A NO.28 OF 2011 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2011 IN CC NO.508 OF 2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, SULTHANBATHERY REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/A1 TO 5 AND 7: 1 JOSE, S/O.DEVASIA,THEKKEMALA HOUSE,KALLUMUKU NOOLPUZHA,MANKUNNEL HOUSE, KALLUMUKKU,NOOLPUZHA 2 ROBERT, S/O.JOSEPH,VADAKUNNEL HOUSE, KALLUMUKU,NOOLPUZHA 3 ELDO, S/O.POULOSE,PACHIKADACHITIL HOUSE, KALLUMUKU,NOOLPUZHA 4 JOBY, S/O.EALIAS,CHAZHIPPARA HOUSE, KALLUMUKU,NOOLPUZHA 5 KUNHUMON @ VARGHESE S/O.MATHAYI,KADAMBAKATTU HOUSE, KALLUMUKU,NOOLPUZHA 6 T.C SHAJI, S/O.CHACKO,THANNIKODE HOUSE, KALLUMUKU,NOOLPUZHA BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 2 RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM SRI. VIPINDAS.T.K THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 3 ORDER Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) II, Kalpetta in Crl.Appeal No.28/2011, accused nos. 1 to 5 and 7 preferred this criminal revision petition. The offences alleged against the revision petitioners/accused are under Sections 143, 147, 353, 323 r/w 149 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (PDPP Act), 1984. 2. The trial court and the appellate court convicted and sentenced the accused and imposed substantive sentence and fine. 3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that, On 10.07.2006 at 9.00 p.m., the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of the common object of the said unlawful assembly, caused hurt to the forest officials and obstructed them from discharging their official duties 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 4 and destroyed the jeep belonged to the Forest Department and thereby the accused committed the aforesaid offences. 4. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 17 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked, and identified MO.1 series. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The trial court, after a full fledged trial, convicted and sentenced the accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to simple imprisonment for 3 months each for the offence punishable under Section 143 r/w 149 of IPC, three months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 r/w 149 of IPC, three months each for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 149 of IPC and simple imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for 2 months each under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. The accused Nos. 6 and 8 were acquitted by the trial court. 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 5 6. Impugning the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the accused preferred Crl.Appeal No.28/2011. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. 7. Impugning the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Appeal No.28/2011, the accused preferred this revision petition. 8. Adv.Vipindas, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Both the trial court and the appellate court appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion. No interference from this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C is warranted in this matter. 9. Per contra, Adv. P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners assisted by Adv. Sruthy K.K., submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is unsustainable. Both the trial court and the appellate court overlooked the serious illegalities, irregularities 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 6 and improprieties. Therefore, the intervention of this Court in this matter is absolutely essential. 10. I have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties. 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even according to the prosecution case, there are hundred persons gathered at the place of occurrence and started agitation against the forest officials due to the delay occasioned for the arrival of the forest officials. However, they have registered the case only against eight accused persons. How they picked and chose these eight persons is a suspicious circumstance which casts a shadow on the prosecution story. It is also submitted that this is a case of mob violence, no concrete evidence was produced to show who all the assailants were with specific overt acts. 12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the incident was at night at about 9 p.m. and the prosecution story is silent with regard to the presence of light and 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 7 the injuries, if any, caused to the victims, who are forest officials, are only minor in nature. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is too harsh and excessive, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed. Considering the nature of offence, facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the substantive sentence awarded in this case can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court. In the result, (a) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (b) The substantive sentence imposed in this matter is modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. (c) The fine imposed and the default sentence are 2025:KER:25152 CRL.REV.PET NO. 798 OF 2013 8 maintained. (d) The revision petitioners shall surrender before the trial court within 45 days from the date of this order to receive the sentence. (e) The court below shall execute the order in the modified manner. Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE msp